search
top

Everyone Should Serve on a Non-Profit Board

It’s quite educational, and will help understand how things can happen in NRA. John Richardson doesn’t seem to believe the story that Wayne was re-elected unanimously. I agree it’s probably true only as a technicality, if it’s not just pure PR spin. That might be true only after it became apparent to the opposition they did not have the votes. It might have just been a procedural matter they are spinning as unanimity. But of course NRA is going to say that, because they don’t want to signal to the media that NRA is divided and weak, because that will become the narrative.

I’m wondering if the subpoenas issued by the New York Attorney General in her investigation are subject to a FOIA-like request. It would be interesting to know what they are demanding. I’ve suspected this might be a fishing expedition, as much as it is an attempt to find a reason to shut them down. I suspect they’d know they’d have an uphill fight in the courts with a shut down. But a symbolic fine after a fishing expedition where NRA’s dirty laundry can be leaked to Bloomberg’s people and the media? Keeping NRA distracted during the 2020 election cycle? That’s worth a lot to the Dems.

27 Responses to “Everyone Should Serve on a Non-Profit Board”

  1. countertop says:

    Subpoenas likely aren’t subject to FOIA.

    See NY FOIL Section 2(e)

    2. Each agency shall, in accordance with its published rules, make available for public inspection and copying all records, except that such agency may deny access to records or portions thereof that: …

    (e) are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which, if disclosed, would:

    i. interfere with law enforcement investigations or judicial proceedings;

  2. dwb says:

    Subpoenas are probably not subject to FOIA, but someone at the NRA (or Bloomberg’s people by proxy at the NY AGs office) can leak them if it serves their interest.

  3. David says:

    Good observation on the real reason for this investigation. I agree that it would be hard to shut them down (unless NRA has been really really stupid). But to keep them occupied through 2020, that is worth a lot to the Democrats, and it appears the President knows this too.

  4. aerodawg says:

    General rule of organizational structures is that the larger the governing body, the less likely they are to be able to make significant changes. At 76 members I agree with some the NRA board is structured specifically to maintain the status quo….

  5. Charlie Foxtrot says:

    Given the announcement of an unanimous and unopposed vote, several NRA Board of Directors have got some splainin to do. Allen West had a pretty big mouth before Monday’s meeting: https://youtu.be/IMvv0CFlmr4

  6. As someone commented to me on Saturday night, we are actually lucky this is happening now and not a year from now in the midst of the 2020 election.

    With regards to serving on a non-profit board, I agree. I served for seven years on the Diocese of Charlotte’s Catholic Social Services Board of Directors. We were a much smaller board but even then staff had an greater impact than your average board member.

  7. Charlie Foxtrot says:

    Anthony Colandro, the NRA-endorsed “outside” candidate, is certainly falling in line. LOL: https://youtu.be/xIKffW7C5iA

  8. Countertop says:

    NRA is a huge organization with a ton of assets. This investigation shouldn’t slow it down at all. And unless there’s real mischief afoot (as opposed to the mere incompetence we’ve heard about so far) isn’t going to threaten the NRAs future viability. But it is a nuisance to deal with. The AG is trying to make a name for herself, and suck up to Bloomberg (who primarily funded her campaign). And Bloomberg is going to use it, and whatever they uncover, to try to jam wedges into the various factions at the NRA and weaken the organization.

    • Charlie Foxtrot says:

      Is $60M in the red considered real mischief or incompetence? I am asking for a friend.

      By the way, the NRA leadership is doing fine with jamming wedges between the various factions and doesn’t need outside help.

    • Stephen says:

      You’d be surprised. A client of ours was working through a lengthy legal fiasco – not horrible, but significant – that you’d think they could have delegated to a committee and tended to other business while the committee worked it out, but I had members telling me it was consuming the board agenda to the tune of 80%, months after it was well “underway” which surprised me. The distraction of existential threat can be significant. Support services, BD and other autopilot operstaions by staff may not slow but any strategic work by the board and executive team can slow to a crawl when something like this happens.

      • Sebastian says:

        I have to agree with Stephen. At least in my experience these kinds of struggles are a huge distraction from the mission. Maybe for NRA, a larger organization, it’s less the case.

  9. Bill C. says:

    I get that the NRA was incorporated in NY a very long time ago before that state was as bad as it is,but why didn’t they leave in the 90’s or early 2000’s? Exactly what good does it accomplish by being there instead of maybe SC, TN, OH, or GA? Or even DE as a lot of major entities incorporate there. Why pick the second worst possible place to be?

    • Sebastian says:

      As best we can tell, it’s not something NRA could easily do, if at all.

      • Richard says:

        So get a better lawyer than New York has. There is nothing but Calvinball anywhere in the legal system.

        • Sebastian says:

          That’s unfortunately not true. I’ve had attorneys advising us that we had an unlawful practice that we had to correct, and members screaming that we needed to hire better lawyers who would “get around it.” We had three lawyers advising us, all saying the same thing, and yet there were still members who wanted to just keep going through lawyers until we found one that would tell them what they wanted to hear. Law is a hard reality sometimes, and there’s no way around it.

      • HappyWarrior6 says:

        Then as far as I can tell it’s time for an orderly spindown of NRA 1.0 and startup of NRA 2.0. The question is how quickly and is it actually necessary? The longer this thing drags on the worse it gets in the press.

        • Sebastian says:

          One aspect of New York law is that the AG has to approve any dissolution plan. So you might not be able to wind down NRA 1.0 and start up NRA 2.0. Unless you basically want the NY AG to have the organization by the balls.

          • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

            Except they don’t have to dissolve.

            Sell the assets to the new org, start making deals out of the new org, and wind down the remaining deals out of the old one. You may not ever need to dissolve. Just let the old one sit there, doing something on occasion.

    • Stephen says:

      Probably the same reason people still live in CA or stay in abusive relationships – always thinking they can turn it around. They only hit us cuz they love us, Bill. 😁

  10. Charlie Foxtrot says:

    So, there apparently was not an unanimous vote. It was just reported as such. Rob Pincus is in this live chat starting at around 30 minutes, but listening to the entire video is interesting and entertaining. TheYankeeMarshal is in there too. LOL.

    https://youtu.be/Ly1g6Lyu_R8

  11. adlib says:

    everyone SHOULD serve on a non-profit board.
    it’s thankless and i don’t know why i keep doing it.

  12. Bram says:

    I have not heard a peep out of the NRA to all of theses proposed “Protective Order Acts” which effectively declare the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments null and void to gun owners.
    https://www.al.com/news/2019/04/alabama-bill-would-take-guns-away-from-those-deemed-dangerous.html

    Either they are distracted or just a worthless money pit.

    • Charlie Foxtrot says:

      Actually, the NRA supports them with its typical political doublespeak: https://youtu.be/7sNiklO506A

    • Sebastian says:

      They don’t support them. They accepted the premise of them, provided they had sufficient due process, which none of them do. They’ve been opposing most red flag laws that have been passed.

      • Bram says:

        “They accepted the premise of them”

        So they instinctively surrendered on the gun-grabbers’ most vicious tactic. And they wonder why…

top